As NSSF has pointed out, there’s no real scientific basis for restricting lead ammunition. Just about all shooting ranges at this point are recycling their lead (it’s too valuable to just leave in the ground). California’s ban has not been shown to reduce lead levels in Condors, and has driven more people away from hunting. Additionally, it’s interfered with lawful self-protection in parts of California that are considered condor habitat.

Are the gloves coming off? The Obama Administration has, until now, been reluctant to antagonize gun owners. Perhaps now that his popularity is reaching new lows, he’s looking to appeal to an important part of his green base by beating up on gun owners and shooters. Having utterly failed to eliminate the Second Amendment by hook, now it would seem he’s proceeding to do it by crook; by demonizing gun owners and the shooting sports as environmental devils. Let’s hope this is about as successful as the President’s other endeavors.

There may be no vote a United States Senator casts that is more important than a vote to confirm a nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court. Now that the Court has clearly stated that the Second Amendment is a fundamental, individual right that applies to all law-abiding Americans, NRA members and gun owners expect a nominee to the Court to fully support, defend and preserve that freedom.

We have carefully examined the career, written documents and public statements of nominee Elena Kagan and have found nothing to indicate any support for the Second Amendment. On the contrary, the facts reveal a nominee who opposes Second Amendment rights and is clearly out of step with mainstream Americans.

Therefore, the NRA is strongly opposed to Kagan’s confirmation to the Court.

In testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, she refused to declare support for the Second Amendment, saying only that the matter was “settled law.”

This was eerily similar to the scripted testimony of Justice Sonia Sotomayor last year, prior to her confirmation to the Court. When pressed on the Second Amendment then, Sotomayor also referred to the issue as “settled law.”

But in the recently decided case of McDonald v. City of Chicago, Sotomayor ignored the “settled law” of the Heller decision and signed a dissenting opinion that declared, “I can find nothing in the Second Amendment’s text, history, or underlying rationale that could warrant characterizing it as ‘fundamental’ insofar as it seeks to protect the keeping and bearing of arms for private self-defense purposes.”

It has become obvious that “settled law” is the scripted code of an anti-gun nominee’s confirmation effort. The NRA is not fooled. No member of the U.S. Senate should be either.

With no judicial record, only Kagan’s political career can be reviewed. And this provides no reason to trust her with Americans’ firearms freedom. Throughout her career, she has repeatedly demonstrated a clear hostility to the fundamental, individual right to keep and bear arms under the U.S. Constitution.

As a clerk for Justice Thurgood Marshall, Kagan said she was “not sympathetic” to a challenge to Washington, DC’s ban on firearms. As a domestic policy advisor in the Clinton White House, a colleague described her as “immersed” in Clinton’s aggressive assaults on the Second Amendment. She was involved in Clinton’s scheme to ban more than 50 types of commonly-owned semiautomatic firearms – an effort described as “…taking the law and bending it as far as we can to capture a whole new class of guns.”

As U.S. Solicitor General, Kagan chose not to file a brief last year in the landmark McDonald case, thus taking the position that incorporating the Second Amendment and applying it to the states was of no interest to the Obama Administration or the federal government.

These are not the positions of a person who supports the Second Amendment and, in fact, represent a clear and present danger to the right to keep and bear arms.

Kagan’s record clearly reveals that she does not believe that the Second Amendment guarantees a fundamental right. In her recent testimony, she refused to acknowledge respect for the God-given right of self-defense.

She should not serve on any court, let alone be confirmed to a lifetime seat on the highest court in the land.

The NRA is strongly opposed to the confirmation of Elena Kagan to the U.S. Supreme Court. This vote matters and will be a part of future candidate evaluations.

The above statement was originally published by NRA-ILA.

You can contact Senator Arlen Specter at 202-224-4254 and Senator Bob Casey at 202-224-6324.

Click here to view the embedded video.

You can also read Kopel’s written testimony where he decimates Kagan’s belief that the KKK & NRA should be linked as “bad guy orgs.”

The NRA has always stood up for civil rights, including the right to keep and bear arms without regard to race, color, or creed. The historic role of the KKK was to deprive African Americans of this right.

The cofounder of the NRA was General Ambose Everett Burnside, who had recently finished two terms as Governor of Rhode Island. As a Union General, he had been a leader at integrating the freedmen into combat roles. As the Providence Journal later put it, Burnside was ―One of the first of the regular army officers to approve heartily of Mr. Lincoln‘s emancipation policy, he was also one of the first to favor the arming of black troops, and one of the most successful in training them for action.

After founding the NRA, Burnside was elected Senator from Rhode Island. He fought against racial segregation in the military, and proposed that West Point adopt an affirmative action admissions plan for blacks.

The sixth NRA President, General Winfield Scott Hancock, was nationally extolled as “the hero of Gettysburg.” As Democratic nominee for U.S. President in 1880, he had lost the popular vote by less than 10,000 votes, and if he had won the swing state of New York, he would have won the electoral vote. Hancock was remarkable for his time, always treating black people as equals, even before the Civil War. In 1880, Hancock led a national campaign to vindicate a black cadet at West Point who had been attacked by some white cadets, but whom the West Point administration claimed had injured himself.

The NRA‘s Articles of Incorporation omitted something that was common for other sporting organizations at the time: a racial exclusion clause. In contrast to many other organizations and clubs created in the late 19th and early 20th centuries—such as the U.S. Lawn Tennis Association, the Professional Golf Association, the New York Athletic Club (for track and field), and the Amateur Athletic Union (same), the NRA welcomed members and athletes of every race.

The NRA was the governing body for the sport of rifle shooting, and eventually became the governing body for almost all the shooting sports. In this way, the NRA set a good example of racial integration and equality for the millions of Americans who participated in the shooting sports. Even during the worst of Jim Crow, a NRA match was one place where blacks and whites were exactly equal, and where skin color did not matter.

In the very segregated Washington, D.C., of the 1930s and 1940s, the shooting range at NRA National Headquarters was the only integrated place where a young black man could go and feel fully welcome. At least that was the experience of Richard Atkinson, a black man who grew up in the District during those years, and who was later was elected a director of the National Rifle Association.

The concerns Kopel raises are some of the reasons the NRA has made its opposition of Kagan crystal clear to members of the Senate. They will score the vote on her confirmation when they calculate grades for the 2010 elections.

Senators Arlen Specter & Bob Casey will likely return to Pennsylvania this next week for the July Fourth holiday recess. Please make sure you contact them to let them know that you stand with NRA & do not want a Supreme Court justice who believes that Americans who believe in gun rights are similar to despicable racists.

Between the 5-4 decision in the McDonald case and the confirmation hearings on the nomination of Solicitor General Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court this week, this commentary from Sarah Palin at last month’s NRA Annual Meeting is a reminder that gun owners cannot afford to sit out of any elections.

But showing up a your polling place isn’t enough if you really have the drive to win. We must get involved with campaigns. It’s not a particularly challenging task, nor does it have to be hugely time-consuming.

Giving just a couple of hours a month to make phone calls to registered voters will give you the power to reach hundreds of families who can turn up on Election Day to vote for your candidate. Knocking on doors for just a couple of hours a month will reach dozens of voters who will be left with a reminder that real people – some of their neighbors – are dedicated enough to support the right candidates on the ballot. If you’ve got special skills, such as web design experience, you could offer to help out smaller campaigns by plugging holes that their campaign coffers are not yet big enough to fill.

But even if you have no time or money to dedicate to pro-gun candidates, make sure you show up on Election Day. Tell your friends and family. Remember that elections do matter.

Josh Sugarmann, head of the Violence Policy Center, to his credit, at least has the ability to call a spade a spade and show they understand who won. Give the Bradys lemons they’ll make lemonade. Give Josh lemons he’ll just get more sour. VPC’s official statement is very much them, and can basically be summed up as “The gun lobby won, so now everyone is going to die!!!”

Scholar David Hardy:

The majority decisively rejects Stevens’ argument for “incorporation, but a weaker version applies to the States.” Scalia’s concurrence stomps all over Stevens’ dissent. And, while not addressing standard of review, the Court repeatedly describes the right to bear arms as fundamental.

Law Professor Jonathan Adler:

Justice Scalia’s concurrence is a strongly worded attack on Justice Stevens’ concurrence over matters of constitutional interpretation. So much for being nice to the guy on his last day at work. Those who love Scalia opinions will love this one. Those who don’t, well . . .

Law Professor Glenn Reynolds:

…it really is interesting how much emphasis the majority, and Justice Thomas’s concurrence, put on the racist roots of gun control. See this article and this one by Bob Cottrol and Ray Diamond for more background. And isn’t it interesting that this is happening on the same day the Senate’s last Klansman went to his reward? …

…personally, I’d like to note that a lot of “respectable” commentators were, just a few years ago, calling the individual-rights theory of the Second Amendment absurd, ridiculous, and something that only (probably paid) shills for the NRA would espouse. (I’m talking to you, Garry Wills and Robert Spitzer, among others). Yet it is impossible to read this opinion, and the Heller opinion, and conclude that the individual right is really just a “fraud” concocted by the NRA. So were those who were saying so until quite recently being dishonest, or merely inexcusably ignorant?

About the Scalia concurring opinion, blogger Sebastian:

My basic conclusion is that Scalia clearly did not believe the majority opinion savaged Justice Stevens enough, and he wanted to make sure his opinion is thoroughly skewered.

Before people get too excited, a lot of gun laws are going to be upheld even by strict scrutiny. Heller has already acknowledged that that government has an interest in keeping guns out of the hands of criminals, so there will be laws that will be permissible with that in mind. But strict scrutiny is a high standard, and there is much law that will fail to stand up to it. Will that be what the lower courts use? We shall see. But they can no longer hide from the fact that the Second Amendment, through the 14th Amendment, protects a fundamental right guaranteed to all Americans.

In the meantime, please take a few minutes to thank the members of the legislative branches of government who worked on our behalf to encourage the Supreme Court toward this position.

US Senate
Bob Casey

• Facebook

Arlen Specter

• Twitter – @SenArlenSpecter
• Facebook

US Congress
Jason Altmire

• Facebook

Christopher Carney

• Twitter – @ChrisCarneyPa10
• Facebook

Charlie Dent

• Twitter – @DentforCongress
• Facebook

Jim Gerlach

• Twitter – @JimGerlach
• Facebook

Tim Holden

• Twitter – @TimHoldenPA17
• Facebook

Paul Kanjorski

• Twitter – @kanjo4congress
• Facebook

Patrick Murphy

• Facebook

Tim Murphy

• Twitter – @RepTimMurphy
• Facebook

Joe Pitts

• Twitter – @JoePitts4PA
• Facebook

Todd Platts

• Facebook

Bill Shuster

• Twitter – @RepBillShuster
• Facebook

Glenn Thompson

• Twitter – @CongressmanGT
• Facebook

State Officials
Tom Corbett

• Twitter – @CorbettforGov
• Facebook

Joe Scarnati

Karen Boback

• Facebook

Michele Brooks

Bryan Cutler

• Twitter – @RepBryanCutler
• Facebook

Bill DeWeese

Glen Grell

• Facebook

Rob Kauffman

• Facebook

Mark Keller

• Facebook

John Maher

Daryl Metcalfe

• Twitter – @DarylMetcalfe

Merle Phillips

Kathy Rapp

RoseMarie Swanger

• Facebook

Will Tallman

• Facebook

Katie True

Well Dan Onorato is blaming Tom Corbett for the so-called “Florida Loophole,” showing that the candidate for governor in 2010 is not shy about sending his gun control views up the flag pole. This is in contrast to Ed Rendell, who conveniently dropped the issue like a hot potato during his 2002 and 2006 runs.

The biggest flaw in Onorato’s argument? Gun owners with concealed carry licenses are more law-abiding than the general population. The second biggest flaw? Tom Corbett was not yet in office to sign the Florida reciprocity agreement in 2001.

I’m convinced that Ed Rendell has convinced fellow Democrats that the NRA can’t touch them. His evidence? His two terms, and Barack Obama’s ten point win in this state. Except Rendell ran against two lackluster candidates, and so did Barry. Corbett isn’t a weak candidate. He’s a hard campaigner and a good fundraiser.

It’s absolutely important we send Dan Onorato packing this fall, or it’s going to be over for us in Pennsylvania. Democrats will say the NRA can’t hurt them, only then they will be right.

Most in the media have made the assumption that Onorato is supportive of gun rights simply because he lives outside of the Philadelphia area.  If you look at the facts, those assumptions simply don’t hold water.  Looking back at the positions taken during the primary campaign, Dan Onorato was only outflanked on the left by Joe Hoeffel.  Post-primary, his positions are still more anti-gun than many of NRA’s most ardent foes in Harrisburg.

On this list of some of the “big” issues right now, Onorato has come out against gun owners 75% of the time. The other two issues are unknowns, or he would support other government officials in their quest for more gun control. That’s not what we usually consider “on our side” in the gun owning community.

Flipping the issue over to look at the issue from the gun control handbook from CeaseFirePA, their big issues show a similar breakdown. Onorato is with them 85% of the time, and they classify the remaining 15% of the positions as unknown – not in opposition to their agenda. Only Joe Hoeffel scored more points with CeaseFirePA. Though Sen. Tony Williams did tie with Onorato, he took a firmer stand against their policies when he didn’t agree with the gun control group.

Another way to look at Onorato’s position is to compare them to recent votes in the Judiciary Committee of the Pennsylvania House of Representatives. To prove the comparison of being with the pro-gun side of the Democratic Party false, I’ve broken these charts down by NRA grade. All lawmakers are Democrats.

This table shows that Onorato is farther to the left on recent gun rights policy debates than two of the four F-rated lawmakers on the House Judiciary Committee.

Looking at some who probably fall on the left of the issue, and another lawmaker who falls squarely in the middle of the issue based on previous grades. Onorato’s policies fall in line with the D- legislator, but he’s exactly the opposite of two other D legislators and our single C-rated representative on the committee. That doesn’t seem to be very pro-gun.

All of these lawmakers are probably the “right flank” of the gun issue for the Democratic Party since they are all A-rated or higher. Most of them carry the NRA’s endorsement. And yet Dan Onorato doesn’t agree with them on anything – from banning guns to gutting gun laws to even a law dealing with self-defense in your own home.

The only truth you may hear is that Onorato’s running mate, Scott Conklin for Lt. Governor, has held a high NRA rating in the past. That is the truth, and he has even carried their endorsement in his race for state representative. Unfortunately for Rep. Conklin, due to the policy proposals of his gubernatorial running mate, it is likely that NRA will not support his run for higher office this year. The Republican candidate for Governor, Tom Corbett, has an excellent record on the Second Amendment issues we’re facing today, and has enjoyed the endorsement of NRA in previous statewide elections.

“So they essentially get a ‘get-out-of-jail free’ card when they’re stopped carrying a loaded firearm. They produce a Florida permit and our local law enforcement must honor that which is unacceptable given the arrest record and the background of many of these individuals.”

See, you get out of jail free, because you flash a legal license. Everyone knows, of course, the default for carrying a gun should be to go to jail.

He says the Sunshine State is less strict when it comes to handing out permits, looking only at convictions and not a person’s character.

The Sunshine State is not less strict. They require training, fingerprinting, and a 120 dollar application fee. So far they can point to one bozo out of thousands in the Commonwealth who have Florida licenses. Most Florida license holders, including myself, also have PA LTCs, and only retain Florida’s CWL for expanded recognition from other states.

Philadelphia sure does look at a person’s character though. Unpaid parking tickets? Well, no, you can’t have a permit. What kind of person owes the City of Philadelphia money? Had a gun stolen once? Well, we can’t have you exercising your right to bear arms. You’re not a suitable person.

The UFA, namely the Amendments of Act 17, were supposed to make Philadelphia shall-issue like the rest of the state. But they haven’t. Philadelphia routinely revokes permits for trivial and unlawful reasons. They represent only a smal fraction of statewide permit holders, yet represent a hugely disproportionate numer of revocations. Why do some people seek recourse in a Florida license? Because it’s cheaper than hiring a lawyer to fight a denial or revocation.

Lentz and all his gun hating buddies in the General Assembly need to understand this very simple fact: We’re going to flip the House back this fall, and if you shove this down our throats, we’re going to shove a whole lot of things down your throats you aren’t going to like, which include eliminating or severely limiting the discretion local jurisdictions may exercise in issuing Licenses to Carry Firearms. You want us to be responsible with guns, we’re going to demand officials be responsible with the law. If they can’t be, we’re going to change it.

I figured that a title about campaign finance reform wouldn’t grab too many eyeballs. But telling people about the intended result of this “reform” probably would. I’ve been thinking about this post for a while now, but decided that Dave Kopel’s release of his June First Freedom article on the subject made the issue more relevant for the blog.

There is one key to the Schumer-backed DISCLOSE Act that makes it dangerous for gun owners who want to organize in any meaningful manner: disclosure of all donors/members whose money may have funded independent expenditures to the FEC.

According to The New York Times, a “reform” bill might require advocacy groups (such as NRA) “to identify all their financial donors or set up separate accounts to handle political spending and identify the donors to that account.”

Simply put: If NRA wants to use its general funds from member dues to speak out during election season, then NRA would have to give the federal government a list of every single NRA member.

The FEC donor databases are open to all, and the most user-friendly that makes looking up individuals easy and fast is the database available at OpenSecrets.org. Kopel uses the example that your boss could decide to cross-reference you to find out what you’re up to outside of work hours. At that point, you just have to hope he/she isn’t anti-gun, or you may find yourself in the unemployment line. Even if NRA maintains a separate fund for campaign expenditures, you can’t donate if you value your privacy.

We’re by far not the only issue concerned about these crazy disclosure agreements. The National Right to Life Committee is opposing the bill on the same grounds:

One of those regulations involves NRLC and other pro-life groups having to identify donors publicly anytime it runs communications in certain times that ask people to contact Congress about legislation related to pro-life concerns.

“Our members and supporters have a right to support our public advocacy about important and controversial issues without having their identifying information posted on the Internet, exposing them to harassment or retribution by those who may disagree with their beliefs,” NRLC concluded.

It’s pretty dangerous in some areas of the country to be socially conservative. See the harassment that same-sex marriage opponents faced in California as an exhibit of what pro-lifers – and possibly gun owners – could face.

Even the parts of the bill that aren’t dangerous for gun owners actively try to cut us off at the knees when it comes to political advertising. I’m not opposed to the spirit of an organization head doing a disclaimer as part of a commercial, but as specific as the DISCLOSURE Act is, it limits our options in order to cut our political effectiveness.

NRA advertisements always let you know that they’re paid for by NRA. Sometimes, NRA CEO Wayne LaPierre appears as a spokesman in a commercial, while in others, it’s Chris W. Cox, chairman of NRA’s Political Victory Fund and executive director of NRA-ILA. Sometimes, NRA may choose to use someone else entirely. For example, Charlton Heston appeared in many NRA commercials during his long service to the Second Amendment.

The proposal would mean that in 1997, for example, when Heston— one of the most respected men in America—was an NRA officer but not president or CEO, an NRA commercial would have been required to cut the amount of time that Heston had to speak about the issues.

Anything that reduces the time we can put Chris Cox’s face & voice in front of female viewers is a loss for our issue as far as I’m concerned!

In all seriousness, we have a diverse set of powerful leaders we can choose from at this point, and most Americans would probably agree that using any of them would meet the spirit of any disclosure laws. If Tom Selleck wants to get on screen as an NRA board member and talk about NRA-endorsed candidates or the issues at stake in a particular election, I’m sure most people would agree that it’s plenty transparent.

Politically, Congress still knows we can raise some hell on this issue. The House sponsor sat down with NRA recently to try and figure out their concerns, and they are specifically worried about last minute lobbying blitzes. It would seem that the pro-life groups and the Chamber of Commerce are planning to score the vote – and I suspect that the final product will determine whether or not NRA scores the vote. (If they do, Democrats may lose the votes they claim to have to pass it in the House.)

The Chamber has particular concerns about how this bill favors unions above other corporations:

For example, companies with government contracts worth $50,000 or more and those with foreign ownership would be banned from funding political ads and engaging in other campaign-related activity. The business group believes unions that receive federal grants, have collective bargaining agreements with the government or have international affiliates should be subject to similar limits.

Eugene Scalia, a partner at Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher and counsel to the Chamber, said the Disclose Act does not balance restrictions on corporations and unions equally, as previous campaign finance reform bills have.

“This bill is a departure from that tradition,” he said.

This is one of the reasons the NRLC argued the bill name should really stand for “Deterring Independent Speech about Congress except by Labor Organizations and Selected Elites.”

Right now, the bill has been postponed in the House. The committee vote was down party lines, and all efforts to make this bill more fair have been turned down based on party affiliation.

The intentional partisanship and one-sided nature of this was demonstrated by the defeat of a series of amendments in the committee mark-up that were proposed by Republicans. This included an amendment by Rep. Dan Lungren (R., Calif.) that would have extended the prohibition on government contractors to any unions that have representational contracts with the government, as well as an amendment by Rep. Gregg Harper (R., Miss.) that would have extended the same ban to any other recipient of government grants, such as the liberal groups that receive so many federal earmarks and other funds. When Lungren tried to extend the political activity ban on corporations with foreign shareholders or corporate directors to unions that receive dues from foreign nationals, that was also rejected.

This bill has got to go down in defeat. NRA is a one-issue organization, but they also look out for our ability to talk about that issue with the public during election season. Because many people who aren’t paid members receiving the magazine pay attention to NRA’s messaging, any effort to silence their efforts will only hurt gun rights on Election Day.

If you know anyone who is currently serving, make sure they know that NRA members say thanks for everything they do. In fact, NRA has created a special free membership for active duty military, guard, and reservists. These memberships are gifts from other NRA members who want to show their gratitude for all our men and women in uniform do to keep us safe.

If you would like to say thanks by donating a membership to a member of the military, click here.

Click here to view the embedded video.

Click here to view the embedded video.

Needless to say, we probably should expect any commercials like these two in the Philadelphia, Erie, or even Pittsburgh television markets any time soon. In Pennsylvania, the dueling pro-gun messages probably won’t top what we already saw in the PA-12 special election.

Among the worst of the three gun bills, HB 1044 would have ended preemption in Pennsylvania. Philadelphia would have had the authority to abuse lawful gun owners even more than they try to do now. Fortunately, thanks to the hard work of gun owners who called, emailed, and tweeted lawmakers, it failed 20-6.

More good news for gun owners comes in the defeat of HB 1045 that would arbitrarily ban some semi-automatic rifles around Pennsylvania. We already saw the failure of the Clinton Gun Ban in the 1990s, and this bill would have been even more useless – beyond outlawing guns in many lawful collections across the Keystone State. The gun ban failed 20-6.

In a sneaky move to create new government staff positions that would promote gun control full-time, HB 1043 was framed as a new “firearms czar,” a bureaucrat who would look for ways to curb gun sales in Pennsylvania on the taxpayer’s dime. Fortunately, this sneaky trick failed by a vote of 17-9.

In a bit of really bright news for gun owners, Castle Doctrine moved in an overwhelming vote. The 22-4 vote won over even poorly rated lawmakers from the Philadelphia area. The only votes against it were from Representatives Paul Drucker, Kathy Manderino, Greg Vitali, and Ronald Waters.

Interestingly, Rep. Drucker (Chester & Montgomery Counties) proudly boasts of his endorsement & support by gun ban groups. It seems like a bold move for a lawmaker who only won his seat in 2008. As a Democrat, he rode the wave of support, but with only 707 votes. He will face Republican Warren Kampf, a Tredyffrin Township Supervisor. While not all candidates in the district have historically been pro-gun, sending Drucker home in November is feasible. It would, at the very least, make sure he is no longer promoting the anti-gun agenda for CeaseFirePA.

In the other races, Rep. Kathy Manderino is retiring at the end of her term. Rep. Greg Vitali has seen significant victories in recent years, enough to warrant consideration for a Congressional run last year. Rep. Ronald Waters is a lawmaker who rarely event draws a challenger. So while some entrenched anti-gun votes aren’t so easy to remove this November, at least a few are up for serious challenge. Let’s make them remember this vote. If they don’t support our rights to self-defense, then we should send them home.

As of Monday morning, only 3,882 votes define the race. Based on turnout, this difference (unlikely to change much by the deadline for unofficial vote tallies on Tuesday evening) will cause an automatic recount should Saidel demand one. His campaign is not commenting on whether they will force the state to recount the ballots at great expense, but some early statements indicate he will challenge the results. It’s not unexpected since Saidel openly mocked other candidates to reporters and never spent money he raised since he assumed he would win.

While the role of Lt. Governor isn’t the most high-profile, it can make a difference in the races. As this snarky take indicates, it can really change a message:

… experts tell the Tribune-Review that running-mates don’t really have that much of an impact on the fate of gubernatorial candidates.

This story is easier to write if you ignore the fact that Ed Rendell wouldn’t have won in 2002 without Catherine Baker Knoll and also now that Tom Corbett doesn’t have to lie awake at night worrying about campaign signs that might have read: “CORBETT/METCALFE 2010: THE BIPOLAR CHOICE.”

If Saidel can’t make up the votes in a recount, the entire top of the ticket for both parties won’t have a single member of the Philadelphia delegation. The closest will be the GOP Lt. Governor nominee from Bucks County and the Democratic Senate nominee from Delaware County.

Tomorrow, the House Judiciary Committee is scheduled to vote on Castle Doctrine legislation – a move we’ve been waiting on since November 19 when they held a hearing! However, it comes at a price.

In addition to the vote on the important self-defense reforms, the committee is planning to vote on three anti-gun bills on the same day!

Contact the members of the House Judiciary Committee today. Tell them that you want their support on HB40 – the Castle Doctrine bill. This specific Castle Doctrine bill will ensure that law-abiding gun owners can feel safe knowing that they can defend themselves from attackers whether it is inside or outside your home. It also protects citizens from the expense of fighting civil lawsuits filed by criminals or their families when self-defense was justified.

But tell them that they must vote down the three gun control bills:

• HB1043 which would create a “Firearm Trafficking Czar” and lead to another bureaucratic agency looking for ways to restrict gun sales in Pennsylvania.
• HB1044 that would end preemption and allow cities to create their own gun bans and carry rules, and
• HB1045 that would arbitrarily ban certain semi-automatic firearms in the Keystone State.

Self-defense reform should not come with a price that includes gun bans, wasteful spending on a new government-funded anti-gun leader, and gutting our state’s gun laws.

Contact the members of the House Judiciary Committee today. Based on the response to Castle Doctrine in other states, we know that gun control groups will get involved in this fight, making it seem as if we will have gun fights on every street corner. As we know, such dire predictions have yet to come true. Make sure you voice is heard! Call, e-mail, or even tweet – just make sure your voice is heard!

Email the Judiciary Committee in two clicks!

Lt. Governor – Democratic Nomination
It’s still a nail biter – and there will likely be ballot challenges in some ares – but early results show that State Rep. Scott Conklin has come out of no where as a late entry to the race to possibly topple the state party endorsed candidate out of Philadelphia, Jonathan Saidel. In his last election to the state House, Rep. Conklin had an A rating from NRA and earned their endorsement. With 99.2% of precincts reporting at about 9am, Conklin leads by 4,654 votes. Let’s keep our fingers crossed that the lead grows as the final votes come in.

Senate District 14 – Democratic Nomination
NRA endorsed State Rep. John Yudichak had a commanding victory over anti-gun mayor Tom Leighton. This seat is likely to remain in Democratic hands, as it has been for decades, so the Democratic primary was essentially the election to watch. Leighton is a member of Michael Bloomberg’s anti-gun coalition calling for an end to gun shows in Pennsylvania. We congratulate Senator-elect Yudichak for his decisive victory.

Governor – Republican Nomination
Either of the candidates in the Republican primary would have been great for gun owners. They both had strong records of defending the Second Amendment, and we’re very proud to see Attorney General Tom Corbett carrying the banner into November. Of course, we also regret that the State Rep. Sam Rohrer will be departing the State House since he opted not to run for his local seat during the primary. Hopefully his replacement in the seat will be as worthy of the support of gun owners as Rep. Rohrer has been over the years.

Senate District 22 – Democratic Nomination
This is a mixed bag election for gun owners. On one hand, the NRA backed candidate – State Rep. Jim Wansacz – did not make the final cut for November. On the other hand, the extreme anti-gun Mayor of Scranton did not survive either. A dark horse candidate won the race, and we hope to find out more about his position on guns rights in the future. This is his first elected office, and he was backed by the retiring pro-gun Senator for this open seat. For anti-gun Chris Doherty, this is his second setback in a few months after his campaign for governor floundered. Calling in the big guns, the anti-gun leader brought in Bill Clinton to record phone calls for him, though it did no good.

Overall, we’re sending a great message to Harrisburg: Your anti-gun candidates will not survive the electoral games this year. It doesn’t matter if you have the backing of Michael Bloomberg and his ally Bill Clinton, NRA members will make sure your race goes down in defeat.

Now comes the harder part where we step in for the final months to turn out the vote in November. We need your help to make sure Harrisburg and Washington are filled with pro-rights supporters.

At last month’s Right to Keep and Bear Arms Rally, PAFOA not only embraced using Twitter and Facebook as a means of spreading news, but members used coordinated tags to have and track conversations about the events. Using the hashtag #2ARally, gun owners were able to label their live reports so folks at home could track them, and they could find each other in real time and in real life through this new digital medium.

This weekend, that same example will play itself out on a much larger scale at the NRA Annual Meeting in Charlotte, North Carolina. Much like PAFOA, NRA has now set up a Twitter account to make announcements, share news, and stir up the conversation about the event – @AnnualMeetings. In addition, they have embraced a hashtag already used by members, #NRAAM. It will allow members to keep track of what others are doing, seeing, and experiencing on the floor.

In addition, members are organizing a Foursquare swarm for users of the location services social application. By “checking in” using the service, it announces to the user’s closest friends that they are taking part in a massive event – upwards of 80,000 people are predicted to attend this year’s festivities.

Given that the NRA Annual Meeting is a much larger affair than the Right to Keep and Bear Arms Rally, it also makes sense that NRA has finally expanded into mobile technology for users on site to keep up with everything going on. In recent weeks, they have announced both an iPhone app and a mobile Annual Meeting website. With more than 6 acres of exhibit halls and events that span three days, it makes sense to enter into this new arena of technology.

With the NRA bringing their show to Pittsburgh in 2011, the first use of many of these technologies will be a great trial run in Charlotte.

Click here to view the embedded video.